World Affairs

Africa's inferno

Published 15 January 2007

In the Darfur region of Sudan, civilians are raped and killed, not for land or goods, but because of who they are. The killing is an end in itself.

A humanitarian disaster is unfolding right now in the Darfur region of Sudan, and it could be prevented. More than 300,000 people, most of them ethnically African, have been killed in the past two years. Some 3.3 million have been forced to flee into camps as a campaign of terror by Janjaweed militias and the army of the government of Sudan clears large areas of the region. The campaign is co-ordinated and systematic. NGOs that hope to give limited help are themselves subject to intimidation. The latest reports suggest that up to 40 per cent of those designated ethnically African cannot be protected.

Rebels fighting the government have also attacked camps and killed civilians. There is, however, an utter disparity in power and violence perpetrated, between the rebel groups and the government/Janjaweed forces. Moreover, the government deploys an overtly Arab-supremacist ideology, chillingly expressed in Janjaweed chants of "Kill the blacks, kill the slaves", and evidence exists of written orders from the government "to change the demography of Darfur and empty it of African tribes".

An important element of this campaign of intimidation, depopulation and murder has been the use of sexual violence. Last month, Amnesty International reported on a "dramatic increase in the numbers of rapes" in Darfur. Amnesty, Unicef, the Aegis Trust and other groups that take a range of views on the conflict all agree that sexual violence is central and systemic to this conflict.

There are few cases of straightforward genocide in which a dominant state sets out to annihilate an ethnic group because of who they are (rather than what they do or think). The Nazis arguably did so against the Jews; Rwanda's Hutu génocidaires did so against the Tutsis. But there are many more cases in which mass killing escalates out of intra-state conflicts that spill over into other states. There are two things that set these kinds of cases apart from "ordinary" civil wars. The first is the killing of significant numbers of civilians because of identities projected on to them. The second is that these projected identities determine who lives and who dies. The killing becomes the purpose of the project: civilians are killed not for a piece of land or other resources, but because of who they are. This kind of killing creates a cycle in which victims then kill for reasons equally meaningless strategically or economically. Such repri sals lead people to question the use of the word genocide.

As in Rwanda, there has been an unconstructive debate about the appropriateness of the term in Darfur. We seem to be frightened of seeing genocide as something distinctive; the debate becomes a word game - is this conflict genocide or is it not? Rather than becoming trapped in semantics, however, we ought to focus on how state-sponsored mass murder acquires a dynamic of its own.

Darfur, and Sudan more generally, was for 200 years a victim of both Egyptian and British imperialism. Then, for generations, the region was neglected by the central government of Sudan. The Sudan Political Service, which governed the area during colonial rule by the British, treated Darfur as a little piece of "authentic" Africa in which it could play king. This institutional condescension created a template of indifference with which post-independence governments in Darfur have continued to operate. In the hands of the post-colonial ruling elite, this template was given an Arab-supremacist inflection that then became an ideology of mass murder. The 1984-85 famine showed the world the extent of central government indifference to the fate of Darfur.

During Sudan's long civil war, the Darfur region was further isolated. When the Comprehensive Peace Agreement was signed in January 2005, a quick Darfur Peace Agreement was also put in place, but it did nothing to meet the needs and demands of the people of Darfur.

How can the "international community" respond to crimes against humanity that are products of post-colonial politics and ideologies but also rooted in imperial legacies? First, we should admit that we are not an international community but a set of competing interest groups. In a unipolar world governed by the United States, it has been in the interests of some groups to pretend that intervention to prevent crimes against humanity or genocide is impossible.

But this is simply not true: China and other states have protected the Khartoum government while the US has been powerless to act. The reality is that Washington could do nothing to stop any state acting unilaterally to stop this kill ing, and would actually welcome anyone doing so.

Mesmerised by US history and by post-invasion Iraq, the international human-rights industry has also been slow to state what is now obvious. This is not an American problem. This is not a British problem. This is not even an EU problem. None of them could take the lead in solving it. This is an African, Arab and Asian problem. The solution is not invasion, or occupation, or regime change. The solution is in the hands of China and the African, Arab and other Asian states that surround, trade with and finance Sudan.

No-fly zone

What could these states or groups of states do? Khartoum has been persuaded to accept the deployment of a limited hybrid force. The first part of a UN force, comprising 43 military staff officers and 24 policemen, arrived in Sudan on 28 December: this deployment must now be built upon in various ways. First, the initial deployment of UN troops in Darfur should be hugely speeded up and extended. Second, a UN resolution should authorise the imposition of a no-fly zone over western Darfur to protect the camps of internally displaced people.

The government in Khartoum should accept both of these actions by acknowledging that it is no longer in control of the situation and that it requires help to protect aid supplies. But it should be made clear that both interventions will be non-consensual if necessary. President Omar el-Bashir's government has taken a series of gambles on the indifference of the world to the fate of Darfur's people, and he will continue to do so. At the same time he cannily presents Sudan as an Islamic state that is the victim of imperialist intervention in search of oil. It isn't, and the imperial power chasing oil hardest in Sudan at this moment is communist China.

There is a simple enough response to this charade. The deployment should be made up from Asian, African and Arab states and the regional organisations representing these states should make it clear that the government of Sudan will be completely isolated unless it moves to control the Janjaweed. Equal pressure must be put on states and groups currently supporting the rebels, especially Chad. The role of the west and nations that trade with Sudan - for example, Japan, China and Malaysia - is to bring economic pressure to bear on the Sudanese government and to offer economic incentives.

It is clear what needs to be done to bring peace to Darfur. But will it happen? A humanitarian disaster is unfolding before our eyes and cannot be prevented. A hybrid force may gradually be deployed over the next eight or nine months, by which time many thousands will have died and the government and rebels alike will have become radicalised by each other's actions. The fighting will continue to spill into neighbouring states. The civil war in Sudan between north and south may start again. But the long-term consequences of Darfur will go far beyond these terrible possibilities. They will be profound for the system of international relations in the post-Iraq-war world and they will seriously challenge European ideas of the universalism of human rights. This universalism holds that there are some things that all human beings should enjoy and some things no human being should endure.

Western imperialism can be blamed for many things, but there is no imperialist explanation for why African, Asian and Arab states do not act over Darfur. They face no logistical obstacle to establishing a no-fly zone. The problem is one of will, not agency or capability.

What ought to unite us against genocide is that, in the end, there is no conceivable geopolitical gain to be had from working with genocidal regimes. The path they have embarked upon has no strategic dimension and it will, in time, self-destruct. These are allies you do not wish to have, neighbours you cannot trust, crimes you cannot live with.

Brian Brivati teaches genocide studies at Kingston University. Additional research by Philip Spencer

Post this article to

17 comments from readers

11 January 2007 at 22:31

The Nazis "arguably" set out to annihilate the Jews?! What on earth does the man mean?

Anna
12 January 2007 at 17:19

Possibly that the Nazis also set out to annihilate other members of society. The Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the severely disabled. This makes the genocide slightly more complicated than what you might regard as absolutely straightforward.

bb 12 January 2007 at 17:28

Yes it was badly phrased. Was the Nazis objective to kill all Jews everywhere asthe intentionalists argue or did they kill to solve a problem they confronted as the functionalists argue. I tend towards the intentionalist position that they wanted to kill all Jews everywhere. In turn this raises the question: did the hutu's want to kill all the tutsis in the world or only those in Rwanda?

ramesh1
13 January 2007 at 08:04

man is naturally evil, really gifted with imagination ,and this imaginationmake illusion in his mind,evil mind alway want some enemy to satify his illusion.

bb 13 January 2007 at 11:16

Thanks for picking this up, it could have been better worded. The arguably relates to the debate between the functionalists who argue that the holocaust emerged from events, context and the nature of the Nazis state and the intentionalists who argue that the Nazis wanted to kill Jews from the beginning and not just those in the Reich but all Jews across the world. I tend towards the intentionalist position.

shan oakes
13 January 2007 at 12:52

academic quibbling in response to situations like this is patronising and ridiculous. ALL states should be responding with vehemence (each in its own way) to insist that the Sudanese government stops atrocities towards its own defenceless people. The bully must be challenged directly, NOW.

James
13 January 2007 at 19:30

Deqth "by government" was the most common form of contrived death in the 20th century. Now it continues in the Sudan and elsewhere. One differnce, however: In the case of the Jews, Kulaks, the physically and mentally disabled, "enemies of the people," Cambodians, "counter-revolutionaries," "worms," Tutsi, dissidents in today's North Korea and elsewhere, and other "targeted" groups, "reasons" were carefully crafted, often printed, and distributed widely. Clear efforts were made to turn these groups into "other" in order to make them easier to kill. Even more insidious, however, were efforts to turn the killing of the mentally ill, the physically disabled, "cosmopolitians," counter-revolutionaries, "worms," Jews, Kulaks, etc., etc., into a positive good, something that was humane, "good" for the other elements of society, and even progressive, as in the case of the attrocities committed by the National Socialists. In other words, when Hell came to earth, it usually came via those who glowed white hot in their hatred of "other" and who sincerely believed that they were doing something "good" for society or for the world. I do not think that those killing people in western Sudan even go to the bother of finding such anb excuse for exterminating the "other.' This may be something new to the world. Obviously, something "should be done," but oil will probably trump significant intervention. I hope I am wrong, but I fear that I am not.

ray newton
14 January 2007 at 16:26

The Sudan Justice and Equality movement did not sign the Darfur Peace agreement as it exposed its hollowness, contradictions and and lack of sanctions if not implemented. In a personal discussion with Hilary Benn who was there to urge the signing on behalf of the government, he expressed great faith in the Government of Sudan and denounced our scepticism. Ray Newton Edinburgh UNA

14 January 2007 at 23:40

ANNA, please add to your comments about the Nazis - socialists and communists. They also were persecuted but apparently history has been re- written and they aren't mentioned.

Anna
15 January 2007 at 11:21

Kate, if we include every group persecuted by the Nazis then the list starts to grow exponentially because the Polish Catholics in the siberian prison camps and others need to be added. I think that people don't mention socialists and communists as often because they were the political opposition and thus unsurprisingly were persecuted by a fascist dictatorship. I accept that I should have included something to note the groups that I ommitted.from the list.

16 January 2007 at 07:03

Brivati's claim that the word "arguably" meant a intentionalist/functionalist issue is still problematic. The Nazis clearly intended to kill all Jews, the only question is WHEN they developped that intention. So the use of the word was wrong. The intentionalist/functionalist argument - which may really exist - sounds like a (Leftist?) attempt to downplay the significance of the Holocaust.

Nick Jones
17 January 2007 at 13:31

It's not a 'Leftist' view at all. The evidence does not suggest athat there was plan of action for the final solution from the outset -that is a fact. However, arguably (there's that word again), the virulent racial language in Nazi ideological statments and manuscripts (including Mein Kampf) point to a level of intentionality from well before the final solution was decided upon by Nazi hierachy. Nobody is trying to downplay the significance of the Holocuast as a world event, or as a tragedy of massive proportions.

probligo
21 January 2007 at 07:00

Funny, huh! The debate is about Nazis eliminating the Jews.

Shows where the real importance lies, huh! Certainly not with the plight of the people of Dafur.

Where is the discussion of the inability of the AU to put an effective number of troops on the ground - if they were allowed to so do - because they do not have enough money? Where is the debate on China's support for, and supply of military materiel much of which ends up in the hands of the Junjaweed? the Sudan government?

No, the important outcome of the article has nothing to do with Dafur or genocide, other than it somehow involves Nazis and Jews some seventy years after that fact.

Shame!

robert
23 January 2007 at 03:25

"This universalism holds that there are some things that all human beings should enjoy and some things no human being should endure."

"First, we should admit that we are not an international community but a set of competing interest groups."

Yes to the first, no to the second. Think of a 'global village' of 100 families. In several of these families, killing and rape is going on. What do you and the other powerful families do?

Joe harrison
29 January 2007 at 08:20

Mr Brivati

A very good article that strikes at the heart of the problem regarding the horror now taking place in Darfur which is that African and Arab states don't have the moral or political will or courage to stop what has been taking place in Darfur. It is quite convenient and politically correct to blame the US and the EU for all the problems of the world and expect them to take action to solve those problems. It is my belief that only force will stop the activities of those carrying out the atrocities taking place in Darfur. One person has commented that the African countries don't have the money to take action, which is not accurate, and even if it were the Arab countries certainly have plenty of money to contribute. They are far too accustomed to relying on the US and EU for such missions, which leads me to believe that this horror might continue. Protesting, creating websites, and contributing money are not enough. Force is required.

Admin
15 February 2007 at 16:25

Can Brian Brivati (or perhaps Philip Spencer) tell me: What exactly is 'arguable' about the genocide commited by the Nazis against the Jews? No such appelation is attached to the other 'genocides' he mentions. This type of slippery journalism is not only offensive to someone like myself who is not Jewish, has no Jewish relatives or even Jewish friends, it is the type of comment that surreptitiously fuels good old Western anti-semitism.

Gail Craswell

refCognize
10 March 2007 at 21:00

Back in January, Anna commented that: "Possibly ... the Nazis also set out to annihilate other members of society. The Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the severely disabled. This makes the genocide slightly more complicated than what you might regard as absolutely straightforward." I add to her thawts: The Nazi effort toward extermination has a further complication in that from the first its anti-Semitism was clear, while its pro-homosexual ideology was equally as clear in that Gen Rohm infamously kept Hitler going, even becoming eventually a threat to Hitler's leadership of the Nazis, by means of the homo-SparticistWarrior ideology and his paramilitary organization, the Socialist Workers Army which his homosect commanded. Only after these early homo-based successes did other "Aryanists" (who become opportunistically anti-homo) also join in the Nazi movement, bringing with them their earned doctorates. The anti-homos gained Hitler's ear, he switched sides, and the regular German army was used to destroy the elite officer corps of the homo-SpartacistWarriors during their annual mountain conference, the famed "Night of the Long Knives."

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.